Those arguments are formulaic and weak. At least flesh them out so you don't look like a worthless hater/buffoon.

I'm not.

Quote:

And if you know ANYTHING about Batman at all, you wouldn't be saying something as baseless as "it's not a Batman movie at all." How is this true? Got any words to back up that hollow and self-important critique? Try learning about Batman outside of Batman Begins before you go around believing the crap that everyone else says about the other adaptations, and you'll find the stereotypes about the Burton films in particular are just that--stereotypes.

Funny enough that I am not even a Batman Begins Nolan fanboy. I've read Batman since the mid-80s, before Burton ever took a Batman comic in his hands.

Quote:

Not that you care about being accurate. Judging by your posts, you just seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon and thought you sounded slick. You don't seem to fully grasp the concept of meaningful argument, nor the finer points of comic book adaptation.

Which bangwagon??? I don't care what other people say!

Quote:

If you want to get technical, Nolan made just as many changes to some of the source material as Burton did. Oh, wait! So, does that mean that Batman Begins is also "not a Batman movie at all"?

The changes made for Batman Begins were just there to fit the story. The essence of the characters was still right(er than Burton's take). Burton's Batman is a brooding psychopath, Nolan's Batman is a hero who gives his life to save other people.

Quote:

And for as corny as some of the lines may be ("Eat floor, high fiber."), at least they're delivered in a mocking, condescending way as to take them out of the camp that they were on the page and turn them into byproducts of wild human idiosyncrasies. Nolan couldn't even do that with Goyer's higher number of corny lines. The inefficient way that they're delivered make them clunky as opposed to natural, and that draws more attention to them ("This... is your mask....", talk about smacking you in the face).

About this there is no need to argue! I see the same mistakes in Batman Begins that most people do.

Quote:

I don't have many complaints about Batman Begins, but your insults against Batman Returns are baseless and easily deflated. Tossing poorly thought insults does not make a good argument. If you think Batman Returns sucks, actually detail why with solid arguments. Not pieces of opinion.

Batman Returns was not about Batman. Yes, when you get superficial you can still say "It's a guy with batears". Yes, yes, yes. A Batman who shots around with H&K firearms would still be Batman in some people's minds. I tell you what's wrong with BR:
- The Penguin being a freak, raised by penguins??? That's stupid.
- Non-existant story and plot, just bits thrown around
- Penguin running for mayor? The Adam West show did that better.
- The whole movie is there to please Burton's ego. It's not about Batman, really. That guy isn't Batman. It is a short man with a deranged minds who blows up people. Yeah, yeah, the original Bob Kane stuff. Like the guy there showed any mannerism of KeatonBatman. Yeah right. If I want to see the end30s Batman I watch "The Shadow", that's more Batman than Batman Returns, or better "Psychoman Returns With Depth"!

Quote:

But anyone who argues that Batman Returns (or BATMAN, for that matter) is a poor adaptation are probably not well-versed enough in Batman lore to really know anything about anything.

I am versed enough. I am much older than you, I saw Batman's decline from a cool guy into a nutjob. I watched the Batman (1989) movie in the first week it came out. I experienced the hype. I liked the movie somehow, but was still a little bit alienated by Keaton and his portrayal. Liked Jack Nicholson. The plot was thin, but okay. The visual style rocked for a Gotham City where Batman just started. But Batman Returns? I sat there and thought WTF??? every 5 minutes. Batman is a COOL GUY. A guy you WANT to be. A guy you COULD be (but in reality you can't, but you can think that). That was a constant factor. From 1939 to the mid-90s. But then (and in the Burton movies) Batman became a pathetic loser, a guy who never came to terms with his past. Yeah right. Before it was only a motiviation, then it became madness. Yeah, but Sam Hamm thought of Batman as an insane guy, so what is to wonder about those movies?

Yes it does come across as somewhat condescending cause I'll be turning 25 this summer but I've been a Batman fan since the late 80's. My first comic that I ever bought with my own money was the first part of A Lonely Place of Dying. Prior to that a lot of comics were handed down to me from older cousin's particularly Marvel titles. Age doesn't define knowledge. Yes I have "retroactively" gone back to revisit the golden, silver and bronze age of the character's history for the sake of having a well rounded understanding of my favorite fictional characer. Cause of that I've also found that I understand more about Batman than a lot of fans who are twice my age though I never brag about it.

This is not my debate but I think Doc's point is that you have put forth arguments that you yourself have yet to have clearly defined. I mean you're gonna say he's a psychopath in BR cool but please explain as to why he is that will actually give the debate more weight. Personally I saw a lot of "Batman" in that movie throughout the pic he did a lot more in terms of detective work and very heroic acts than he ever did in terms of psychopathic behavior. So I could see why others can't see where you're coming from cause I can't either. Please elaborate a bit more.

__________________I enjoy comic book adaptations but I'm a comic book fan first and foremost. Not a comic book movie fan.

No, it's not. It's just an overlooked truth. Judging the past is always difficult. And the Batman was never like Burton's Batman. That's a fact. Hell, people like Frank Miller, Matt Wagner and John Byrne didn't like the Burton movies at all.

For starters he cracked The Joker's poison code and deduced who he really was in the first film by looking into the man's criminal profile and experimenting by combining diffirent beauty products. In the second he found out the true intentions behind The Penguin's plan we see scenes prior to this where you see him figuring it out whether in the batcave or while he is patrolling. He also found out the truth behind Max Schreck's nuclear power plant suggestion. Just because he didn't have a trenchcoat, a magnifying glass and a pipe in his mouth while he figured this out and we didn't see him go "AHA! elemantary!!!" doesn't mean he didn't do detective work.

As for your latter post Alan Moore can't stand the works of Frank Miller including his Batman stuff. Richard Donner, Jeph Loeb and Mark Waid are amongst many who hated what John Byrne did with Superman in the mid 80's leading into the 90's. Does that mean their works were not true to the essence and many themes of the mythos they worked on? absolutely not it just means that all these creators are human beings just like us who also have their own opinions.

__________________I enjoy comic book adaptations but I'm a comic book fan first and foremost. Not a comic book movie fan.

No, it's not. It's just an overlooked truth. Judging the past is always difficult. And the Batman was never like Burton's Batman. That's a fact. Hell, people like Frank Miller, Matt Wagner and John Byrne didn't like the Burton movies at all.

And people like me love the Burton movies.

Are you now reaching to the insecurity of "this writer or artist didn't like it, in his opinion it was bad so it's definitely true!"

On that same token, Alex Ross has stated Joker's origin in B'89 is far superior to what Moore created in The Killing Joke.... just because he said it doesn't make it so. You can do better.

__________________"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross"- Harry Callahan

DocLathriop is 21. He would've been what... 3 years old when Burton's first Batman movie came out!

So he cannot judge the way Batman was before. Of course he can read the old stories in a "retroactive" way, but he would still be spoiled by the modern comics.

And my age matters.... how? And my introduction to Batman comics was through the back issues. Exclusively. Though I've caught up and read the modern material, it was not my primary exposure to Batman, and thusly, it did not "spoil" me. No doubt about it, Batman's best years were in the 70s and 80s.

You fleshed out your feelings into a more cohesive form. I have no more complaints. You expanded beyond "Batman Returns sucks!", which is what I asked you to do. But your further arguments are still flawed. It's clear thay you only dislike Returns because it's not done how you wanted it to be. So much so that you've written off seeing anything good in it. I didn't like the idea of the Penguin being so insanely vicious, but that doesn't mean I discount the accuacy of the film in relation to the comic books.

Batman wasn't a detective in Burton's films..... what a ridiculous statement. And easily proven wrong, as Cain did. Besides Forever and 1966's Batman: The Movie, the Burton films were the ONLY Batman films where Batman was a detective.

Maybe you need to go back and read some more back issues before you go around claiming that Batman Returns "isn't a Batman movie."

And I was pulling the "I know more than you" card? What do you think you just did, by infurring that your age makes you more right than me?

For starters he cracked The Joker's poison code and deduced who he really was in the first film by looking into the man's criminal profile and experimenting by combining diffirent beauty products. In the second he found out the true intentions behind The Penguin's plan we see scenes prior to this where you see him figuring it out whether in the batcave or while he is patrolling. He also found out the truth behind Max Schreck's nuclear power plant suggestion. Just because he didn't have a trenchcoat, a magnifying glass and a pipe in his mouth while he figured this out and we didn't see him go "AHA! elemantary!!!" doesn't mean he didn't do detective work.

To the poison code: The computer did it for him. And where did he find out the truth about Max Shreck's plans? He didn't even find out the plan to kidnap the firstborn, only because the Penguin revealed it, he could save them. No, there was nothing in those movies I would let count for detective work. You know, like investigating the crime scene and other things. So, show me more about this World's Greatest Detective with Depth!

Quote:

As for your latter post Alan Moore can't stand the works of Frank Miller including his Batman stuff.

He praised DKR.

Quote:

Richard Donner, Jeph Loeb and Mark Waid are amongst many who hated what John Byrne did with Superman in the mid 80's leading into the 90's.

Well, I don't like the whole "Superman is Clark Kent with powers and an true Earthling", too.

Quote:

Does that mean their works were not true to the essence and many themes of the mythos they worked on? absolutely not it just means that all these creators are human beings just like us who also have their own opinions.

Yes, Byrne's Superman was not true to the essence of the character. And so was Burton's Batman.

Yes the computer did it for him because it doesn't take a person to operate a computer and input information. You see the meeting between him and Schreck he clearly goes "Gotham City has a power surplus so I'm wondering, what's your angle?" he knew there was something fishy there.

With the Penguin he looked at old articles that stated that some children who went to the red triangle circus ended up kidnapped and missing and the only one who wasn't questioned by authorities was the aquatic bird boy because he dissapeared before the law could reach him. Also he sees the Penguin at the hall of records looking through birth certificates and jotting down names and tells Alfred "I think he knows who his parents are". He knew there was something to look into there as well.

Superman is my second favorite fictional character of all time like Batman I appreciate all the interpretations. Also I will point out that writers like Grant Morisson and Geoff Johns who have been considered by fanboys as 2 writers who really do understand Superman had positive things to say about Byrne's MOS. Hell that's one of my top interpretations as well. Not faithful to the essence of the character? are you kidding? he was still a self less hero who valued the lives of innocents above all others. He was still a farm boy who loved his parents and hometown dearly.

Just because those themes were presented differently doesn't mean they're not there. Actually I'd say he did more for the character than most before him as he clearly also defined that Clark Kent, Kal-El and Superman are all 3 different parts of the same whole and in turn that made Supes and his mythology even more well rounded. There is a reason that lasted as canon for over 20 years.

__________________I enjoy comic book adaptations but I'm a comic book fan first and foremost. Not a comic book movie fan.

Once again, how do you know that? He investigates the background of the Red Triangle gang after this mysterious Penguin person appears, and learns of an aquatic bird boy who was a member of their gang.

That's not guess work. That's detective work. He wasn't guessing. He knew it was The Penguin.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Arguing with this guy is like arguing with a hoola hoop. Whatever you say just goes right through him.

He isn't interested in being fair, so when he's proven wrong, he just ignores it. I wouldn't waste time arguing with him any more.

yeah, yeah. Just because I do not sing "Praise the lord! Everyone is true to Batman just in a different way!" it's a waste of time. yeah, yeah, yeah. And I am fair! It's just not really difficult to argue against a movie where the superficial parts (Batman being a guy called Bruce Wayne, having a cave and so on) are there. But in the essence he doesn't act like Batman, he is not Batman. And almost no other character is like his comic counterpart. The only one I can think of is the Joker.

Once again, how do you know that? He investigates the background of the Red Triangle gang after this mysterious Penguin person appears, and learns of an aquatic bird boy who was a member of their gang.

That's not guess work. That's detective work. He wasn't guessing. He knew it was The Penguin.

Not to mention the realization on Bruce's face when watching the news. At first, he's sympathetic toward the Penguin. But then when he sees Shreck go and stand next to him immediately, you can see in Keaton's face that Bruce is thinking "Hmmm..... that's odd. Schrek went right to him. This guy may not be so innocent after all." Which starts the wheels turning in his brain.

I guess that Burton's filmmaking style is too vague to help catch Parents-Gun-Bat's imagination.